As mainstream Muslim women, we see the girl’s headscarf not as a signal of “choice,” but as a symbol of a dangerous purity culture, obsessed with honor and virginity, that has divided Muslim communities.Continue reading...

The clash of values emerged this past New Year’s Eve on the streets of Cologne, Germany, when dozens of marauding young men, many of them described as coming from Muslim communities in North Africa and the Middle East, sexually assaulted scores of young women, setting off a scandal in Germany.

Last month, Hala Arafa, an Egyptian-American journalist, and I wrote a Washington Post essay arguing that the headscarf isn’t Islamically mandated. We received verbal abuse from American Muslim leaders and academics, not to mention countless angry online comments. But we also received hundreds of messages of support and thanks from Muslims and others who appreciated our candor. We’d like to have a civil conversation on this topic, and we welcome thoughtful comments and questions from the Parlio community.

I'm so glad there is a discussion had regarding hijab, somewhere in the world, led by a Muslim female. And like every other aspect of Islam in the 21st century, the hijab question is complicated.

In a purely anecdotal aspect, my mother and sister wear hijab. I do not. They find it empowering. After five years of wearing the thing in a variety of ways, I never felt empowered. I believe we agree on the notion that if someone chooses to wear hijab, there is no problem with their choice.
The issue lies in the patriarchal interpretation of Islam and the cherry-picking interpretation of how Islam applies to women: every one has volition and choice, but hijab is mandatory. I know there are millions of ways to describe exactly what hijab is, which to some Islamic scholars includes the bikini, because it ultimately covers portions of one's modesty.

Perhaps if Muslims, including myself, were more open-minded about interpreting the Quran, and realizing that practice of Islam is relative to the locale one is practicing in, that could lend some assistance to the hijab question.

I do wonder, based on your arguments for social reformation of Islam, if you are proposing that the concept of modesty should not exist for women (and men for that matter)? I completely understand the notion of right to wear what you want, but where does one draw the line, does one refer to laws of the land? Thank you!

Fatima Hussein I don't know how to define modesty, Fatima. I wear business suits (skirt/pants) to work. I fit in within my surroundings. I don't look odd. I'm dressed as everyone else in my time period. I don't attract attention because I'm like everyone else around me. That is how I define modesty... fitting in with your times & not attracting undue attention. It is worth mentioning that men who harass women on the street do not care if they are covered up or not. Sexual harassment in Egypt increased to become almost an epidemic after 90% of women covered up. Modesty is a social attitude & social behavior. When a society agrees to cover up the women because it believes "men cannot control their urges" then it gives men tacit approval to harass women. If they have the "go ahead", then they'll do it even if the woman is wearing a tent.

Dear Fatima Hussein: Thank you, first of all, for your important testimonial and witness to your experience. I am curious about a few elements, if you don't mind my asking, just because I do believe that the personal gives us a window into wider global trends. Would you mind if I ask who influenced your mother's, sister's and your belief that a headscarf is required, if that is even what you believed, before you decided to stop wearing it.

I used to cover the workplace too for the Wall Street Journal, and, as you know, societal attitudes are most often influenced by the marketing, and I believe religious ideas are no differently affected.

I think Hala answered thoughtfully the deeper question of what modesty means. I do believe, as Hala does, that commonsense prevails, but ultimately there should be no criminalization of dress codes by the state, other than mandates on nudity, for the sake of children's eyes, at a minimum.

But I do remember writing a Work Week column, as we called the feature at the WSJ, when women first started wearing sleeveless tops into workplaces in the 1990s. It was headline news!

To me, your most important point is the one you make in which you state that we might be in a better place, as Muslims, "if Muslims, including myself, were more open-minded about interpreting the Quran..."

I believe that it is so important for us to apply the same critical thinking to the Quran and religion as we do to every aspect of research at work. I first met the feminist scholar from Morocco, Fatima Mernissi, in the late 1990s, when I was in Europe for a travel story. She died recently, but she left with me a forever memory when I saw her Qurans with Post-It notes and her hair uncovered as she held her Qurans. "I think of the Quran as my research book," she said. And so have I ever since.

I hope you have read Asma Barlas's and Amina Wadud's books on reinterpreting the Quran from a woman's perspective. They liberated me from the men's club of thinking.

If the Parlio community doesn’t mind an individual getting so personal: My mother, born and raised in America, converted from Catholicism to Islam after about five years of being married to my father, who is a Palestinian immigrant to America. Like many converts (but not all), she quickly absorbed all of the practices that surrounded her, including wearing a headscarf. After asking her why she wears it after 30 years, she said, “it makes me feel liberated and modest, also I feel that it is a requirement from our Prophet.”

I wore it because it was “encouraged” to do so by my family, and I also wanted to fit into the larger tribal aspect of being part of a Muslim community. I took it off partly because I was harassed and partly because my notions of modesty in America don’t necessarily rise to the need of a headscarf. Taking it off has been one of the hardest things I’ve done in my life. I would also argue that in western societies, many, many girls are not given the choice. I am lucky to have been given the ability to take it off.

A few friends from law school chose to wear it, despite ill treatment by fellow students and professors, because it was their way of separating themselves from what they considered an oppressive society - a sort of “F**k you” to everyone around them. The headscarf is punk rock to the individuals who choose to wear it, and there are resulting struggles in doing so. For those of us who rebel against conventional interpretations of what hijab is, there are also struggles, but in a different form.

Perhaps it’s completely Bid’ah, but I prefer to wear a large pendant that says “Allah” on it every day, just in case people can’t figure out what my religious affiliation is by my name, they can see it around my neck. I want to be identified as a Muslim on my own terms. At the end of the day, I don’t think choosing not to wear a scarf should be directly correlated to not being religious. Just as those who cover have every right to rebel against some western notions that less is more.

With that, I’m always glad when Muslim women lead the debate on how the religion relates to females in every society. Hijab is just a small portion of it, but somehow it’s so integral to defining our place in Islam today.

Dearest Fatima, I want to thank you for speaking so eloquently about your journey of identity. And so honestly. I love your idea that the headscarf is a sort of punk rock symbol to some. That's a very important reality too to recognize.

As you know, in telling your mother's story, so often, converts are taught the most conservative interpretation of Islam, such as the idea that the headscarf is a divine commandment that "pleases" God. Though you might not be able to peel back the layers, some of the sources of those teachings are the preachers and websites set up by the government of Saudi Arabia or Salafi clerics that embrace its interpretation of Islam, like this "sister's page" on MuslimConverts.com: muslimconverts.com/sister...ex.htm

I've got an excerpt below from this site on how the headscarf helps to do "dawah," or proselytizing. It's through expressions like this that we can see that the headscarf is not just a piece of cloth, to the strategists and ideologues, selling their version of Islam.

Thank you for your acknowledgment of how, too often, in fact, even in the West, outside countries with forced covering, women and girls don't really have choice in their families. What I see is that you have used your skills of critical thinking, or ijtihad, lauded outside our communities, to examine the issues within our communities, and I think that is what we need to do more often, rather than responding defensively to critical thinking.

What I have done for myself is apply to Islam the same questions I asked when I covered the airline industry: Who is funding what? What's the lobby and what does it want? What ideas are they selling? And who is benefiting?

I was shocked at the backlash Hala and I got to the Washington Post article that we wrote. There were two phrases that some Muslims opposed: that Hala and I are "mainstream" Muslims; and that the headscarf is promoted by an idea of "political Islam."

And what I ask myself, as a reporter, is: who gains from avoiding these conversations? I return to the governments of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran, who are powerful and rich theocracies, peddling the idea to the world that women have to cover their hair to "please" God.

And, since you mention, "bid'ah," the word for "innovation," please don't censor your right to ijtihad for fear of such doctrinal bullying. "Bid'ah" is an idea too peddled by the Salafi tradition of Saudi and Qatar to challenge reform and change. Here is a link to a Saudi cleric who condemns bid'ah: https://islamqa.info/en/864. Meanwhile, he accepts "intercourse with a slave woman": http://islamqa.info/en/10382

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say to you: wear your Allah pendant with pride and joy! And thank you for this conversation.

Here is more from the "sister's page."

It states: "HOW YOU CAN HELP SPREAD ISLAM: 1 Your Islamic dress in itself is dawah to many Non-Muslims. If its a women looking at you explain to them that you wear this dress because Allah told you to wear it and explain who Allah is. If you are not confident to do this then you can keep some leaflets handy and give them those leaflets."

Muslims need to be able to freely and openly debate the headscarf, or hijab. It’s certainly true, as Asra Nomani argues, that the idealization of hijab can put women who choose not to wear it in a challenging position. So, yes, speaking as a Muslim-American, if I had a daughter, I’d want her to be able to *not* cover her hair and not have to worry about being judged by her peers as somehow less religious or “chaste.” But this doesn’t change the fact that just as women should be free and empowered to choose not to wear hijab, they must also be free and empowered to wear it, if that’s what they want. This is why it’s hard for me to understand why we need to put quotes around the word “choice.” Here in the United States, every single hijabi woman I know has chosen to wear it voluntarily, sometimes to the dismay, or even outright opposition, of friends and family. While there are countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran where hijab is mandated, in countries like, say, Turkey or Morocco, there’s no evidence I’ve seen that suggests that a large number of women are forced against their will to wear the headscarf by a parent or spouse. So it really depends on which countries we’re talking about. (Of course, in those cases where women are forced by their families, communities and civil society organizations, whether in Western or Muslim-majority countries, should speak out unequivocally and take action).

If Nomani and Hala Arafa’s Washington Post article was merely offering the view that the headscarf isn’t Islamically mandated, then that’s great. (It goes both ways though: just as Muslims have the right to argue that the hijab is not religiously mandated, they should also have the right to argue that it *is* religiously mandated). Muslims need to feel comfortable debating sensitive issues like this in public forums. I certainly agree with Nomani that people shouldn’t feel afraid to object to the notion that hijab is fard (obligatory). This, though, doesn’t mean casting the choices of the hundreds of millions of women who have worn the headscarf as somehow invalid, irrational, wrong, or backwards. In her post here, Nomani argues for example that the headscarf is a symbol of a “dangerous purity culture, obsessed with honor and virginity.” This would seem to suggest that anyone who chooses to wear it is somehow encouraging “a dangerous purity culture, obsessed with honor and virginity.”

Just as conservatives argue that the opinion that hijab is not obligatory is simply illegitimate and worthy of scorn, we need to be careful about doing the reverse. Nomani and Arafa write that “in exploring the ‘hijab,’ [those in universities and the media] are not exploring Islam, but rather the ideology of political Islam as practiced by the mullahs, or clerics, of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic State.” This is not quite correct. For better or worse, all four Sunni madhabs (schools of law) consider covering the hair to be obligatory by ijma’, or consensus, regardless of geographic context. We don’t have to like this (and perhaps one day there will be more dissenting voices like Khaled Abou El Fadl), but we can’t ignore or dismiss it either. Legal debates aside, there are endless millions of Muslim women who believe that covering their hair is religiously mandated, so, for them, it is inextricably tied to Islam and to their own personal relationship to God. To insist otherwise is to deny the agency, autonomy, and choice of these Muslim women.

I also have some concerns about how Nomani and Arafa link the wearing of the headscarf to the rise of Islamism. The idea that the hijab is some modern Islamist creation is not correct. While it is true that majorities of women, particularly in urban centers, did not cover their hair in the 1950s or 60s, it is more accurate to see this several decades-long period, during the heyday of secular Arab nationalism, as exceptional in the broader sweep of history. For instance, in the pre-modern era, the vast majority of women covered their hair throughout the Middle East (and even this may be an understatement).

It is also hard to blame Islamists for hijab, since the “Islamic revival” in the Arab world preceded the rise of Islamist parties, and not the other way around. I discuss this at length in my book Temptations of Power, but here a few relevant data points. In Jordan, the “secular” government started getting religion – by, for example, incorporating the religious obligation of zakat into the tax system and Islamizing television programming – before there was a single Islamist in parliament. One of the most ambitious efforts in recent decades to reconcile national law with sharia occurred under the "secular" President Anwar el-Sadat when the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt controlled less than 1 percent of parliament. Sadat’s sharia committees receive little attention, but it's a fascinating episode in recent Egyptian history. In short, much of the Islamic revival of 1970s and 80s was grassroots and organic (as evidenced by the fact that, even where Saudi Arabia’s influence was marginal, as in Turkey, we see similar trends). With democratic openings in Jordan and Egypt in the 1980s, Islamist parties could ride society's growing religiosity to electoral success. What this means is that the initial rise of Islamist parties was more the consequence rather than the cause of the Arab religious revival.

Meanwhile, in Egypt today, some of the most vociferous anti-Islamist voices – many of whom self-define as “liberal” – wear the headscarf and do so proudly. I imagine they’d find being called instruments of Islamism somewhat odd.

It is also worth noting that just as headscarf can be forced, so too can not wearing it. Tunisia and Turkey saw decades of forced secularization, where the headscarf was not only stigmatized and belittled as backwards but also even banned in state and public institutions. Presumably, the many women who still chose to wear the headscarf in these circumstances were doing so at considerable risk. In Tunisia, to wear the hijab meant to put yourself under suspicion of being a member or supporter of the then-banned Islamist movement, Ennahda. (Few have made the argument that hijab is an Islamist creation with more enthusiasm than certain secular dictatorships). Up until just a couple years ago, wearing the headscarf in Turkey meant that you couldn’t go to university in your own country or work as a doctor in a state hospital. Despite this, large numbers, and evenmajorities, chose to cover their hair.

Finally, there is a way of phrasing and framing the debate that I think we would all do well to avoid. For example, Nomani and Arafa write about growing up “in modern Muslim families.” This, again, would seem to suggest that women who choose to cover their hair are somehow less modern. What, I would ask, is intrinsically “modern” about not covering one’s hair?

Shadi Hamid: Thank you for your comment. I will address your various points separately, as you have included a number of issues in your post. Related to the point of why the headscarf is a phenomenon of the "purity culture" of political Islam and represents a rejection of "modern" ideas, I would recommend that readers also read these two arguments for why women must wear headscarves:

"Men, whether they confess it or not, are slaves of lust and desire. Hijab protects women from such men; it symbolizes that she has been sanctified to one man only and is off-limit to all others. Hijab contributes to the stability and preservation of marriage and family by eliminating the chances of extramarital affairs."

"...it is the men who are to be blamed for harassing women, yet the woman who fails to realize that dressing in a way which is so strikingly appealing (particularly when working in a male-dominated environment) is only asking for trouble is part of the problem as well. Regardless of where the blame lies, there is only one way by which a woman can guard herself against such evils, and that is why Hijabi women conceal their beauty in public as much as possible."

The central assumption of these arguments is a very simple one: a woman's hair is "awrah," or a private expression of sexuality that is forbidden from being seen by anyone who isn't her "mahram," or legal "chaperone," including her husband, son, nephew, father and uncle. As you are also well aware, the assumption for believing a woman must wear the headscarf is also this: that a woman must "hide" her "awrah" so as not to tempt the man, who is weak.

Both of these assumptions are ones that "modern" societies have rejected, for the most part: 1) that a woman's hair must be covered for fear of sexually arousing a man; 2) that a woman is responsible for a man's sexual behavior.

These are assumptions that many Muslims who support the headscarf do not want to discuss in the company of those who aren't Muslim, because, if you ask me, these assumptions are indefensible, particularly among those who are critical thinkers and also have a sense of parity when it comes to personal responsibility. They are promoted by the Salafi traditions today of the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, along with others.

The reason why "choice" is put in quote marks is because, like all ideas, the idea of the headscarf is sold, promoted and marketed by a multibillion dollar industry, funded today by the governments and citizens of nations, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We may have each made a "choice" to engage in conversation at Parlio.com, for example, but unless Parlio.com had been created, marketed, promoted and sold to us as a good idea, we wouldn't have made the "choice" to be here.

Absolutely, the surviving eight madhhabs, or schools of jurisprudence, have developed a consensus of their male scholars that the headscarf is required; thus, my mother wore the full face veil in the 1960s in India, but the drive, push and passion to put a scarf on every woman exploded post 1979 with the rise particularly of Islamist movements. Thus, even in my hometown of Morgantown, W.V., I would hear the lectures that a woman must cover her hair, for an "unchaste woman" is "worthless."

To deny the multibillion dollar industry marketing the headscarf as a virtual sixth pillar of Islam is to deny the reality of political Islam today.

Great and interesting post. But I'd take issue with your very last sentence.

Covering one's hair is an expression of religiously-mandated modesty that applies only to women. This is "not modern" in the sense that it perpetuates patriarchal views about women's bodies and their roles in society.

So, yes, when a women chooses not to cover her hair, it's intrinsically a more "modern" choice, because it challenges the traditional (and many would say sexist) expectations of how women should behave, relative to men.

Thanks Ilya. Glad you liked the piece. On the last point, first, not all women wear the hijab because they think it's religiously-mandated. And I would take issue with the starting premise that hijab necessarily "perpetuates patriarchal views about women's bodies and their roles in society." I know many hijabi women who would disagree quite vehemently with that characterization, who self-define as feminists and are at the front lines of working for women's rights in the Muslim community. But perhaps I'd also disagree with the premise behind the premise: that to be "modern" is to to have a particular set of views about gender equality or, more generally, to be liberal. That's what I'm trying to challenge in that last sentence. How do we decide what is and what isn't modern? For the millions of women who chose to wear the hijab at great personal risk in Turkey, Tunisia, as well as in Iran (under the Shah): what could be more modern than affirming one's agency, autonomy, and personal choice in the face of authoritarianism and the desire of secular states to politicize and control women's bodies, by restricting what they could and couldn't wear?

Ilya Lozovsky: Thank you for your comment. You expressed clearly my belief, as well, that it is not at all "modern" to accept the premise of the headscarf: that a woman is too sexy for her hair. "Modern" society abandoned that premise when it decided a woman couldn't be blamed for being a rape victim.

Shadi Hamid: No matter what the intention of the user, the fundamental theological premise of the headscarf, repeated in sermon after sermon, is that a woman's hair is "awrah," and a sexual temptation to men that must be concealed. I would like to gently say that I don't think it's appropriate to describe women as "hijabi women," even if women who wear the scarf use that term, because women are clearly much more than their headscarf. It's of course your choice to use the term, but I consider it reductionist, and use of that term leads to women who don't wear the headscarf, being dismissed, meanwhile, as "nonhijiabi women." My point here, and in the deeper discussion about why the headscarf is not compatible with modernity, is that, ultimately, a woman's identity is more than a piece of cloth.

Shadi Hamid The idea that head cover is religiously mandated was never a part of Islam until Saudi Wahabism became known in Moslem countries in the 1980s. It is inaccurate to mention it as a fact, when in fact it is just the belief of the fundamentalists. As we said in our piece, when Moslem women in Egypt took off the Turkish "yashmak" not one religious institution protested that this action was not religious. It is inaccurate to paint Islam with one brush.

Shadi Hamid, Given the impact of this issue is on women first and foremost, I would express my view but defer to Women on weight and might of this matter.

There are certainly women, as you correctly point out, that wear hijab proudly as a badge of honor. I know and admire many such women. Yet, Hijab, in general and in various forms has historically if not always been forced by men or other religious women and more often than not a weight on women's sovereignty and independence. Your very first sentence is the challenge of Moslems. A free and open discussion about Hijab is not an option for majority of Moslems in most islamist countries; particularly women. Suggesting it should be, does not change the fact that it is not.

Your observation on Hijab in Turkey and Morocco may be your experience but as a frequent traveler to both countries with family ties to both, I find it contradictory to reality. I would add Malaysia as well, where we have seen the Islamization has driven significant adoption of Hijab (and other social restrictions) and again that's not because Malaysians, Turks, or Moroccans suddenly found religion.

Your assertion that {"It is also hard to blame Islamists for hijab, since the “Islamic revival” in the Arab world preceded the rise of Islamist parties"} is inconsistent with social pattern development. It is not common for a Political party to precede a trend or movement that gives it impetus. Of course, the "islamic revival" preceded the political parties that then forced the will of revivalists that included Hijab and those revivalists were predominantly men.

In most cases, if not all, Islamic revival has been a reaction to fast modernization (often listed as Westernization), an exertion of identity (particularly in Arab world) and aided by Western anti-communist sentiment and funding mostly between 60's and 80's. None of this makes it hard to blame Islamists for forcing Hijab because they did force it and once Islamist parties rose to prominence the legal and sharia force was extended by peer/social pressure and conformance.

In Iran, that you correctly point to as an example of forced Hijab and then excuse along with Saudis, as a kind of anomaly, is also inconsistent. Pre-Islamist Iran (1979) was by far the most liberal and least religious majority Moslem country in the region if not in all of Moslem world along with pre-Islamist/pre-Erdogan Turkey. How come their very first act was to force Hijab on women? and as the center of Shiite how is that not impacting all Moslem/Shiite women and countries?
And the same goes for Saudi, who are the leaders of the Sunni world (with much larger population than Shiite) and a key influence not just on doctrine but on conduct of many Moslem countries and groups by funding them. How are these significant entities not forcing Hijab in some way, directly or indirectly? (beyond what Moslem women wear out of religious conviction).

To separate Islamist and Islamism from mandatory Hijab, or growing Sharia law stepping on secular law and many basic rights even in some Western countries (parts of London now have shria law) is an extremely difficult case to make despite many attempts by well funded sources on many fronts; religious or political.

Thank you very much for reading our work and engaging in conversation. If you would like to read more about the Muslim Reform Movement, and its declaration, please go to http://muslimreformovement.org.

The simplest delineation is choice versus mandatory or social pressure to wear hijab. Wearing Hijab was a non-issue until islamist and islamism, itself a reactionary force aided by anti-Soviet Western policies of cold war era, came about. Any moslem nation now has a lot more Hijab than 20 years ago and that is not because they all suddenly found religion. Political Islam as lead first and foremost by Saudi Wahhabism and then Iran's Shiism is the problem; as are political Judaism, Christianity, or Hinduism when given the opportunity. Or for that matter the structurally peaceful Buddhism when it becomes political as it has in Myanmar committing genocide against Rohingya moslems. Separation of religion and state was a keystone of human progress and its erosion has reversed that progress.

Alex Shahidi You hit the nail on the head Alex. This head cover all started with the reemergence of political Islam. As for "Choice", I think this is the fundamentalists' double talk, a trick they use to indoctrinate the women. If their assertion is that "Hijab" is a religious obligation, then there is really no choice. "Wear it or be a sinner" is not much of a choice. Now, if they said "It is an accessory, just like a ring or an earring, & God doesn't care one way or the other whether a woman wears it or not" THEN, wearing it will be pure choice.

Yes, Alex Shahidi, absolutely. As Hala said, you nailed it. I was born in 1965 so I remember a time before the 1980s push to put a scarf on the heads of women. The term "hijab" has been hijacked to mean headscarf, and that is why it is so important that we deconstruct how we got here, as you do.

Your article was the perfect answer at the perfect moment, and I was glad it reached people who, unaware about the other side of the coin, decided to wear the hijab to show solidarity with Muslim women.
I'm sad to see US Muslim leaders denounce the statement. In France, they stand for Women's rights and secularism. And as a French citizen, I'm used to critics from the US each time we stand for secularism, which is a key asset for both democracy and freedom of religion (e.g. with about the burqa issue a couple of years ago: e-blogules.blogspot.com/2...itical).
Our ambassador to the States summed it well: in the US, secularism is about defending religions from the State, in France, secularism is about defending the State from religions. Not against religion, but for neutrality and against coercion.

Yes, Stephane Mot, I took my French Honor in middle school in the 1970s, just before the Saudis started pushing their Salafi ideology of Islam to the world, known to many people as Wahhabism, competing with Iran's Shia theocracy. It has taken me this long to understand your point: secular governance is absolutely the answer to political Islam. And yes all political movements in the name of religion.

For that reason, this is 3A in our Muslim Reform Movement declaration:

"Secular Governance: Freedom of Speech and Religion
We are for secular governance, democracy and liberty. We are against political movements in the name of religion. We separate mosque and state. We are loyal to the nations in which we live. We reject the idea of the Islamic state. There is no need for an Islamic caliphate. We oppose institutionalized sharia. Sharia is manmade."

Some liberals in the west are reluctant to criticize the cultural practices of others (especially Islamic cultures) because historically, it came in the form of literal imperialism in which one culture was subjugated to another. The more progressive idea being that we must respect the inherent dignity of those people by letting them pursue their own cultural practices. This belief seems to have gone so far as to respect the dignity of other cultures who do not respect the dignity of their people.
But at the core of respecting the dignity of all humans is respecting individuals free choice. We can argue that everyone should respect the individual dignity of others without becoming imperialistic. That means respecting free choice to adopt the religion of the parents or not and in particular, interpret their religion to mean headscarves or not.

Chris Carpenter: I really like the way you put that, Chris: "...at the core of respecting the dignity of all humans is respecting individuals free choice." That is what we lose when collectivist values about, for example, perceived slights to honor, like so-called "blasphemy," infringes on an individual's right to free speech...and then life, if a person is killed for an expression of free speech, as the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were assassinated.

Hala and I received so much verbal abuse to the Washington Post article, I contacted our local police officers to alert to concerns we had about our personal safety. When such hostility occurs because of our arguments over a piece of cloth, you know that the discussion is very much not just sartorial.

I am saddened to hear that you felt threatened due to your speaking out. It is not just sartorial and the stakes could not be higher.
Have you read Kwame Anthony Appiah's book, "The Ethics of Identity"? I imaging you probably have, but just in case, he makes an eloquent argument against collective identity.

Chris Carpenter: Thank you so much for the wonderful recommendation. I haven't read the book, but I'll be sure to get it. I think the interesting dimension about this conversation, from a communications perspective, is how it is that language is appropriated to communicate ideas (like "hijab" becoming "headscarf") and then how fiercely individuals and institutions will defend those ideas. To me, that's the timeless struggle of ideas, don't you think?

People fiercely defend ideas because they consider those ideas as a part of themselves. When those ideas are attacked, they feel attacked. A small subset of those people then react with the same level of violence as if they had been physically attacked.

Very well put, Chris. My nephew, Samir, who graduated with a degree in philosophy, said that the idea of the headscarf as not Islamically-required challenges the fundamental identity of those who wear it as an expression of Islam. Nonetheless, I believe it is important to challenge assumptions of identity, though it is painful to some, because these are the levers that are used to control people, and, in this case, women and girls, in particular.

Reading your piece and the commentary stirred several opposing dialogues in my mind. I found myself in opposition to the title, as it conflicted with my belief in human's inherent freedom of religious practice. As I read further, I understood more where you were coming form. Oppression of women in Muslim societies is on the rise, and the hijab could be seen as part of that effort, given its exclusive application to one sex, sometimes under coercion by a male operative (father, husband, etc.).

I completely agreed with the notion that forcing the wearing of the hijab is wrong, but at the same time, found your argument perplexing that wearing the hijab out of free will is oppressive, if not oxymoronic. Shadi Hamid response detailed eloquently most of the counter arguments to be made in that regard. In your reply to his commentary it is clear that you find the rationalization for wearing the hijab by some (if not the majority of) Muslim scholars (who also happen to be men) objectionable and conflicting with “modern” societal standards of equality. But in doing so, you assumed the necessity of an underlying rationale to justify the religious practice. Is logical discounting or incompatibility with current societal norms enough to dismiss a religious practice or majority opinion jurisprudence?

Let’s hold off on the rationality issue for now. The hijab, despite being a small constituent of a larger Islamic dress code (described in all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, some go further than others) generates the most debate. The overall visual end product of this dress code is to make certain parts of the body indescribable/obscure to an observer by use of loose and opaque clothing (or when it comes to hair, the hijab) in an attempt to regulate sexual behavior. The dress code includes both sexes, but is not symmetrical in its requirements for coverage. For men it is generally described to be between the navel and the knees, for women, it is basically the entire body, except the face and hands. Is this asymmetry oppressive? Is it really required or is it just a virtue? Are there any plausible explanations for this differential treatment?

Following the narrative of the article’s authors, the presence of this asymmetry must be viewed as oppressive, as it contradicts equality between the sexes. Hijab, and the dress code it comes from, imply an excess emphasis on the sexuality of the female body and an undue and unjust burden to hide this sexuality from the, assumed to be, weaker male. It then follows that the requirement for hijab is man-made (by predominately male scholars) and not divine in nature. A valid rationale. On the other hand, proponents of the dress code argue that the asymmetry between the elements of the dress code for males and females is in line with the disproportionate interest mankind has expressed in the female form versus that of the male. Citing evidence ranging from Helen of Troy to Kim Kardashian and modern industries of modeling/entertainment and even pornography, these proponents would argue that the female beauty/sexuality is given more emphasis by humankind by many orders of magnitude. Therefore, in trying to regulate sexuality, within the context of religion, god’s differential treatment would appear to be justified, and not sexist. To me, this is also a valid argument. Maybe a comparative look at other rationalizations in intersections of religion and sexuality can help figure out which argument god subscribes to?

Having grown up in the Middle East, I have heard hundreds of sermons rationalizing the Islamic prohibition on alcohol, swine, extra-marital sex and homosexuality and the virtues of the Islamic dress code. Those rationalizations included the spread of STD’s, destruction of society and incompatibility with a successful life and the numerous superlative benefits of chastity and modesty. These same people (I suspect many of which are on the website that was quoted) also used socioeconomics to rationalize polygamy and inequity in inheritance as part of Islamic jurisprudence. Having lived in the West, I observed that all these rationalizations are empirically false. The majority of people I know drink, have extra-marital sex and love bacon on their burgers and suffer no adverse consequence, on the contrary, may derive benefit. Most gay people I have interacted with have exceptional moral character. The same people who provided these sermons drew conclusions about the morality and virtues of women who wear the hijab versus those who choose to reject it. Similarly, I have found these conclusions to be unfounded. In my observations, the distribution of underlying human qualities in these two groups do not appear to be different. But yet I still do not drink and my wife wears the hijab.

I came to the realization that attempts at rationalization, in either direction, of the “will of God” in Abrahamic religions contradict two of the main premises of those faiths. First, Abrahamic traditions ascribe to an all-knowing all-powerful creator deity to which humans are subservient and inferior. Second, although they differ in routes to salvation, these traditions agree on the necessity of obedience to the creator’s instructions. The creator, in his “communication” with humans made no underlying explanation for the majority of his commands. Nor can we assume that human intellect can match that of the all-knowing all-powerful creator to reach the same underlying divine reasoning. Humans, by nature, are given the freedom to: a) believe/disbelieve in the creator and/or b) obey/disobey the creator (in the absence of other human coercion). An argument can be made that belief in an Abrahamic system is nonsensical and counter-logical, but this is not our discussion, as the author and most commentators are arguing from inside the realm of religion.

For those who choose to believe in a god through Islam or other Abrahamic religions, interpreting the will of the creator based on human rationality appears contradictory to his divine nature. This is especially problematic when that will is clearly stated (scripture), or has majority consensus. In fact, "Islam" in Arabic literally means "surrendering to the will." Compliance with the creator’s instructions is not done for the merits of that behavior (e.g not eating pork) but out of obedience to the creator, otherwise, the Sabbath, Ramadan and Lent would be pointless.

When a religious practice becomes a societal norm, it can be difficult for those who wish to exercise their freedom in non-compliance with that norm. The stigma their choice may carry and the pressure to comply is a side effect of human group dynamics that is not unique to religious matters. The solution, in my view, is to reform that dynamic by stressing the importance of individual free choice, and not turn around and stigmatize those who choose perceived compliance with god's will even in the face of opposing social pressure.

Dear Tarrik, Thank you for your very thoughtful and respectful discussion of a difficult topic that indeed does challenge a "societal norm," as you put it. I read your words very carefully, re-reading at times to make sure that I understand not only the letter but spirit of your words.

First, thank you for very important cross-cultural analysis on the chasm between the words that are spoken so often from the pulpit, lambasting the supposed ills of the West, and the realities of people in the West who are not in fact as tormented, horrifying and, quite frankly, corrupt, as the sermons preach. I have heard those sermons, too, and they horrify me, telling us for example not to "imitate the disbelievers." But, as you know, because of the "norm" of not challenging the preacher and the deference too often to "ijma," or consensus, too many in our community remain silent. So I thank you for you wise and compassionate analysis.

On a second point you made, attempting to make sense of the "asymmetry" of what modesty looks like, I would depart from your analysis. I believe we simply inherit the lowest common denominator of society and, quite frankly, the rules of men's clubs, when we use indicators, like the popularity of Kim Kardashian or supermodels, to rationalize the need for "asymmetry," as you eloquently describe. We remain prisoner then to the lowest common denominator of human values. Further, I would question this analysis on a couple fronts. There are certainly a lot of sexy images of men, from the newest Axe advertisement to People's Sexiest Man issue. Also, something we rarely address is that this analysis assumes a heterosexual bias. What about the lesbian woman who finds a woman attractive? Or the gay man who prays in the same row as another man? How do we add that element to the "asymmetry" that we already have in place? We don't, as if that part of society, deemed "haram," doesn't exist. What I say is this: instead of punishing women with "asymmetry," having learned that separate is not equal, why don't we do something more noble: rise to the highest standards of human existence where we do not limit and define each other by our sexuality, but rather aspire to connect with each other in our humanity?

Thirdly, I appreciate that you recognize that this asymmetry has a lot of serious consequences that are very prejudicial against women, like denying us access into mosques through the front door, or space in the main halls. We are punished for being a sexual distraction. The word as you know for discord is "fitna," and I heard it so often that if a woman shows her hair she causes "fitna," or discord; and that same excuse was used to argue that women can't walk through the front door of a mosque and pray in the main hall. With this logic, we, the wretched woman of sexual distraction and temptation, is the source of "fitna." I trust that you cannot believe that any logic that carries with it that assumption is healthy or positive for society.

Every time, a man has said to me, "Sister, you are causing fitna," because I dare, for example, to sit in the main hall, so I can see and hear the preacher properly, I say quite frankly, and I apologize for my frankness: "I am not responsible for your erection. That is your jihad bil nafs," or "struggle of the soul." I understand our communities are hypersexualized because of the norms now set forward against gender mixing, but the solution isn't to separate, isolate and silence women (when our voices too are deemed too sexy to be heard), but to create healthy societies where women and men mix with mutual respect.

Finally, I can read that you very delicately address the issue of "submission." What Hala Arafa and I argue as a very fundamental point in our premise is that the headscarf is not Islamically required. The word "hijab" is not once mentioned in the Quran to reference "headscarf." We have shown very clearly how the government of Saudi Arabia has added text into the translation of its "Noble Quran" to even try to impose a veil on women, revealing only "one eye." We understand that there are women and men who believe, with every fiber in their bodies, that the headscarf "pleases" the "will of God."

We respect that is their belief, but, quite frankly, with no delicacy possible in my words, we are arguing that we don't agree, and they are practicing a very conservative interoperation of Islam that happens to be supported nowadays through the eight schools of jurisprudence, all named for men, and the tradition of Saudi's and Qatar's Salafi Islam that claims to be beyond the eight schools but is really tied to the Hanbali school.

Male scholars concluded women have to cover their hair; they have peddled that idea; and there are many who believe it now. That's what happens with ideas. They are sold by well-funded schools, scholars, think tanks and special-interest groups, much like ideas have been sold through the years. Some buy it. We don't and many mainstream Muslims don't.

We didn't argue that the act of making the "choice" was oppressive; such an argument would indeed be oxymoron; but we said that the choice itself is a choice for oppression. Shadi Hamid argued that women who fought for the right to cover in Turkey, when it was banned, were acting courageously, but, "choosing," even valiantly, a symbol of oppression does not make the symbol fought for any less oppressive. For example, I don't think any of us would argue that the young women who "choose" to join ISIS as Islamic State brides, covering not just their hair but faces, are making a "choice" of real empowerment, but rather they are "choosing" subjugation and oppression.

I understand that I have missed some of your points. I am sensitive to being respectful to all of your conversation, but also a little sensitive to brevity, though I failed there, alas. I just very much appreciate the time and thought that you shared in having this important conversation. Thank you! Asra

Asra Nomani When it came to the "asymmetry" I tried to present the opposing counterargument , not necessarily advocating for it. My intent was not to advocate for any argument that claims to know the absolute "truth" regarding jurisprudence and how god thinks, weather presented by you or a stereotypical male scholar.

I would be interested to hear your views on issues such as female inheritance , polygamy and homosexuality which are more clearly outlined in scripture. Do you think they also need reform ?

Tarrik Zaid: Oh, I see, I thought you were arguing for the rationality of "asymmetry," which I believe "modern" society, to borrow on the thread presented earlier, discarded with the conclusion that separate is not equal. Thank you for clarifying.

Yes, in the Muslim Reform Movement, we have a very simple advocacy of equality. Thus, we view the literal Quranic text on inheritance and polygamy as relevant for that time, allowing for four wives and saying daughters got less inheritance than sons. But we also see those new edicts as progressive for times when men didnt have restrictions on the number of wives they had and daughters received no protection of any inheritance.

In that progressive spirit, we argue that men like women are permitted only one wife today. And daughters receive equal inheritance to sons.

You didn't ask about witness. The Quran stipulates women are one half the witness of men. Interested in how we believe we should handle that issue?

And we are against criminalization of consensual adult sexual behavior by the state, through zina, or illegal sex, laws. Thus, homosexuality is a private issue that is not to be punished and criminalized by the state. And in fact people who are LGBTQ get equal rights to heterosexual people. This is the position too of Muslims for Progressive Values. http://mpvusa.org

As Shadi Hamid Notes in the article: women are constantly depicted as creatures without agency. Unfortunately Muslim "feminists" fall into this trap and argue that veiling is anti-modern and that it is a sign of oppression ( similar to Orietalist perspectives). Women should wear what they want to wear : hippies , veiled, aa.
Opening up contentious topics like women's veiling, democracy.....etc in Islam needs a platform that is open in spirit and format. I would argue that we majorily lack the fundamentals of debate and discussion, or in more Islamic terms: Adaab al-ikhtilaf.

Thank you for writing. I believe that it is dangerous -- not to mention dismissive -- whenever a criticism to an argument is to apply the "O" word, because it does just what you are arguing against: using a word that has now become a smear to take away the "agency" of an independent thinker. Also dismissing a woman's arguments as "feminist" also does the same.

In theory, your argument is a noble one that women "should wear what they want to wear," but we would be extremely remiss if we didn't discuss the multimillion dollar industry in place today, by Muslim governments, religious departments, and others, to put a scarf on Muslim women's heads, now supported by fashion industry enterprises like Dolce and Gabbana.

This platform seems to be open in spirit and format. Does it not seem adequate to you? But I agree that what we have experienced in other places is a complete lack of adaab, or good manners, in discussing this most important of issues.

Thank you, to every one of you for participating so gently and so thoughtfully in this thread. The best aspect of this thread is the many diverse thoughts and feelings and opinions presented. Only once did I stop reading while thinking: "This cannot be true!" But it wasn't challenged so perhaps it's not as important as I thought.

Ahhh, Asra! First, I am not a Muslim, which by itself begs the question of whether I can raise a valid point, but it is important, I think, that we explore our different ways of being and believing. Parlio is a great place for exploring, so:

Shadi wrote:"...just as Muslims have the right to argue that the hijab is not religiously mandated, they should also have the right to argue that it *is* religiously mandated".

This, to me, had the flavor of an impossible position where one may be asked to comply according to the wishes of an adherent of either the for or against mandate, but not perhaps according to the Koran.

How one can bend or follow according to one's inner predilection are questions that could also be asked, for each of us read with eyes that see different meanings in the same spiritual metaphor. So those were some of my thoughts.

Nanna Wulff Mercer: First, Nanna, I would like to say that you should never feel as if you are not entitled to express your opinion on Islam because you are not Muslim. We are citizens of this earth, thinking and intelligent. We have a right to speak on any topic that we care about. I say this because there are many ways that people try to silence others and alleging that they don't have the right "credentials" is often used.

To your question, and my coauthor, Hala Arafa, can speak to this as well. Shadi is of course right to say that, about the headscarf, people have the right to "argue that it is religiously mandated."

I don't mean this as a point of disrespect, but people have a right to argue anything they want, including the idea that the world is flat. That is why we are in a marketplace of ideas. The idea that the world is flat is mostly not accepted. But folks can argue it.

To the point of the headscarf, it's up to the thinker to decide. We lay out our arguments clearly. No where in the Quran is "hijab" used to mean headscarf. And the one verse that is read to say that women should throw the "khimer" over them, is taught by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran to say that it's the headscarf. We argue that it was a scarf over the shoulder, and we also argue that it was for a time and place when women faced sexual harassment on the streets. We say that Muslim countries and societies need to police the sexual harassment -- not women.

So you decide. It's a marketplace of ideas, and we say that political Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafi institutions, Deobandi schools and so many others peddle the idea that women have to cover, as part of an interpretation of Islam that also makes women 1/2 the witness of men. Let the best ideas win. I am confident our ideas will prevail.

That is also why a fundamental precept of the Muslim Reform Movement is this:

"We believe in life, joy, free speech and the beauty all around us. Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam. Ideas do not have rights. Human beings have rights. We reject blasphemy laws. They are a cover for the restriction of freedom of speech and religion. We affirm every individual's right to participate equally in ijtihad, or critical thinking, and we seek a revival of ijtihad."